Saab 96 - Daily driver?
Discussion
My folks bought a new Saab 99 in 1973 but looked at the 96 too...
Presumably you'll be going for a V4 (post '67) rather than the two stroke and ideally tax free.
The 96 is more similar to the '50s 93 than it is different, but by the '70s it had gained some very modern features - headlight wipers, heated seats and energy absorbing bumpers('73ish). They're very narrow by modern standards, with the rear accommodation seeming very like a beetle's to my 11y.o. mind, but with cheerfully(!) coloured brushed nylon upholstery.
0-60 takes about 16s so they're by no means quick, but the column change is by all accounts slick.
Even the 4-strokes retain the selectable freewheel originally fitted to overcome the lubrication issues faced by fuel lubed 2-strokes on the over-run.
Probably easier to live with than a Beetle or Moggy I'd have thought.
Presumably you'll be going for a V4 (post '67) rather than the two stroke and ideally tax free.
The 96 is more similar to the '50s 93 than it is different, but by the '70s it had gained some very modern features - headlight wipers, heated seats and energy absorbing bumpers('73ish). They're very narrow by modern standards, with the rear accommodation seeming very like a beetle's to my 11y.o. mind, but with cheerfully(!) coloured brushed nylon upholstery.
0-60 takes about 16s so they're by no means quick, but the column change is by all accounts slick.
Even the 4-strokes retain the selectable freewheel originally fitted to overcome the lubrication issues faced by fuel lubed 2-strokes on the over-run.
Probably easier to live with than a Beetle or Moggy I'd have thought.
I had a few 95's and 96's - the 96 v4 is a great car and I don't recall having any worries using it as my daily driver... having had beetles too I would say the saab is better if winter temps are to factored in, but the beetle engine can be easily improved upon for power etc if thats required.
If I had to choose between the two I'd go for the saab; more comfortable, quieter and with the gearshift and freewheel its a nicer car to drive.Solid car too - probably quite safe.
If I had to choose between the two I'd go for the saab; more comfortable, quieter and with the gearshift and freewheel its a nicer car to drive.Solid car too - probably quite safe.
volvos60s60 said:
Thinking about a Saab 96 as a daily driver - opinions anyone?
If you know of a good restored one please let me know
I've done this, a couple of years ago. Worked well. Obviously it was an old car and, as a result, had old car foibles. However there's no substitute - whether in London traffic or along country roads - for a properly narrow car. Front passengers don't necessarily appreciate this if either / both of you are on the broad-shouldered side.If you know of a good restored one please let me know
Unfortunately I had to leave it parked on the street a little way away from where I was living and working (no on-street parking and, obviously, no commuting needed for a while) for a few weeks and lost track of when the (free) tax was due. When I realised I'd left it too long and went to pick it up (about 6 days after the tax had expired) it had already been picked up and crushed by the local council as being "abandoned"...
Anyhow, back to the car. The steering loads up quite a lot on lock, which can mask the really rather good handling. Rust is the major enemy - look on the various enthusiasts' websites for full guides. They can rust everywhere, but the real killer can be rust where the tray under the engine meets the front footwell / bottom of front bulkhead. Because of a serious lack of access, serious corrosion here can effectively kill the car.
Engines are quite hardy: again, the buyers' guides will give you the low-down. Most will NOT run on unleaded without additives, unless they've had hardened valve seats fitted; you need to factor in the cost of the additive to your running cost estimates.
To optimise the handling, I recommend you brush up on your left-foot braking. However for ultimate fun I'd thoroughly recommend a stroker...
I have always fancied a 2-stroke 96 - I see that there are a few specialists about (mostly racing) providing all manner of engine spares. Would it really be much more difficult to run than a V4? Less to go wrong and a simply awesome noise. Must be a really interesting driving experience too.
Unfortunately I had to leave it parked on the street a little way away from where I was living and working (no on-street parking and, obviously, no commuting needed for a while) for a few weeks and lost track of when the (free) tax was due. When I realised I'd left it too long and went to pick it up (about 6 days after the tax had expired) it had already been picked up and crushed by the local council as being "abandoned"...
Anyhow, back to the car. The steering loads up quite a lot on lock, which can mask the really rather good handling. Rust is the major enemy - look on the various enthusiasts' websites for full guides. They can rust everywhere, but the real killer can be rust where the tray under the engine meets the front footwell / bottom of front bulkhead. Because of a serious lack of access, serious corrosion here can effectively kill the car.
Engines are quite hardy: again, the buyers' guides will give you the low-down. Most will NOT run on unleaded without additives, unless they've had hardened valve seats fitted; you need to factor in the cost of the additive to your running cost estimates.
To optimise the handling, I recommend you brush up on your left-foot braking. However for ultimate fun I'd thoroughly recommend a stroker...
skwdenyer said:
volvos60s60 said:
Thinking about a Saab 96 as a daily driver - opinions anyone?
If you know of a good restored one please let me know
I've done this, a couple of years ago. Worked well. Obviously it was an old car and, as a result, had old car foibles. However there's no substitute - whether in London traffic or along country roads - for a properly narrow car. Front passengers don't necessarily appreciate this if either / both of you are on the broad-shouldered side.If you know of a good restored one please let me know
Unfortunately I had to leave it parked on the street a little way away from where I was living and working (no on-street parking and, obviously, no commuting needed for a while) for a few weeks and lost track of when the (free) tax was due. When I realised I'd left it too long and went to pick it up (about 6 days after the tax had expired) it had already been picked up and crushed by the local council as being "abandoned"...
Anyhow, back to the car. The steering loads up quite a lot on lock, which can mask the really rather good handling. Rust is the major enemy - look on the various enthusiasts' websites for full guides. They can rust everywhere, but the real killer can be rust where the tray under the engine meets the front footwell / bottom of front bulkhead. Because of a serious lack of access, serious corrosion here can effectively kill the car.
Engines are quite hardy: again, the buyers' guides will give you the low-down. Most will NOT run on unleaded without additives, unless they've had hardened valve seats fitted; you need to factor in the cost of the additive to your running cost estimates.
To optimise the handling, I recommend you brush up on your left-foot braking. However for ultimate fun I'd thoroughly recommend a stroker...
AnotherClarkey said:
I have always fancied a 2-stroke 96 - I see that there are a few specialists about (mostly racing) providing all manner of engine spares. Would it really be much more difficult to run than a V4? Less to go wrong and a simply awesome noise. Must be a really interesting driving experience too.
There are a range of issues with using the strokers as daily drivers. For instance, you really must use the freewheel to make sure that the engine doesn't see too much reverse loading ("engine braking"); since the oil is delivered along with the fuel, this causes the engine to see load whilst lacking lubrication. For the same reason, the preferred fast driving technique is relatively all-or-nothing with the throttle, again to ensure sufficient lubrication.They're not at all fast, nor torquey, by any modern standard, but they are light and make a fantastic noise!
skwdenyer said:
AnotherClarkey said:
I have always fancied a 2-stroke 96 - I see that there are a few specialists about (mostly racing) providing all manner of engine spares. Would it really be much more difficult to run than a V4? Less to go wrong and a simply awesome noise. Must be a really interesting driving experience too.
There are a range of issues with using the strokers as daily drivers. For instance, you really must use the freewheel to make sure that the engine doesn't see too much reverse loading ("engine braking"); since the oil is delivered along with the fuel, this causes the engine to see load whilst lacking lubrication. For the same reason, the preferred fast driving technique is relatively all-or-nothing with the throttle, again to ensure sufficient lubrication.They're not at all fast, nor torquey, by any modern standard, but they are light and make a fantastic noise!
Zaphod I said:
I used our show car 96 for around three weeks, when the Lexus blew up, and I was looking for another Saab to replace. Lovely to drive every day into work, but I winced as the miles clocked up.
I happen to think there's a market for a recreation of a bullnose stroker, perhaps done in GFRP, running something very simple and economical as a power plant. Does anybody fancy having a go with me? We could probably find a modern 2-stroke engine to use...skwdenyer said:
Zaphod I said:
I used our show car 96 for around three weeks, when the Lexus blew up, and I was looking for another Saab to replace. Lovely to drive every day into work, but I winced as the miles clocked up.
I happen to think there's a market for a recreation of a bullnose stroker, perhaps done in GFRP, running something very simple and economical as a power plant. Does anybody fancy having a go with me? We could probably find a modern 2-stroke engine to use...AnotherClarkey said:
skwdenyer said:
Zaphod I said:
I used our show car 96 for around three weeks, when the Lexus blew up, and I was looking for another Saab to replace. Lovely to drive every day into work, but I winced as the miles clocked up.
I happen to think there's a market for a recreation of a bullnose stroker, perhaps done in GFRP, running something very simple and economical as a power plant. Does anybody fancy having a go with me? We could probably find a modern 2-stroke engine to use...Then the question is, how much will the target market pay for the vehicle? If the figure is high enough then one could recreate the wonderful lightness of the original by building a composite monocoque - there are lots of flat panels in the structure of these cars, which would reproduce well in honeycomb-cored GFRP (or even carbon, if you wanted to spend a fortune). The compound curves of the main body panels add a great deal of stiffness and mean that they could be done in relatively thin GFRP. With a little localised steel reinforcement, I think one could come up with a very elegant and lightweight recreation.
So, back to the need for a donor
skwdenyer said:
AnotherClarkey said:
skwdenyer said:
Zaphod I said:
I used our show car 96 for around three weeks, when the Lexus blew up, and I was looking for another Saab to replace. Lovely to drive every day into work, but I winced as the miles clocked up.
I happen to think there's a market for a recreation of a bullnose stroker, perhaps done in GFRP, running something very simple and economical as a power plant. Does anybody fancy having a go with me? We could probably find a modern 2-stroke engine to use...Then the question is, how much will the target market pay for the vehicle? If the figure is high enough then one could recreate the wonderful lightness of the original by building a composite monocoque - there are lots of flat panels in the structure of these cars, which would reproduce well in honeycomb-cored GFRP (or even carbon, if you wanted to spend a fortune). The compound curves of the main body panels add a great deal of stiffness and mean that they could be done in relatively thin GFRP. With a little localised steel reinforcement, I think one could come up with a very elegant and lightweight recreation.
So, back to the need for a donor
Departing rather from the original concept, if you could get the total weight down to 400kg you could slip it into the 'heavy quadricycle' legislative category which I imagine would reduce the development cost somewhat. The only problem is that you would then be limited to 20hp - for me that would be fine, something that light with a nice snickety gearbox and excellent handling would be an appealing drive. Others may scoff at it though. Having said that some people (many on the continent) pay surprising amounts of cash (circa £8000) for horrible Aixam etc. microcars. One which looked good and was sporting to drive might have real appeal.
AnotherClarkey said:
skwdenyer said:
AnotherClarkey said:
skwdenyer said:
Zaphod I said:
I used our show car 96 for around three weeks, when the Lexus blew up, and I was looking for another Saab to replace. Lovely to drive every day into work, but I winced as the miles clocked up.
I happen to think there's a market for a recreation of a bullnose stroker, perhaps done in GFRP, running something very simple and economical as a power plant. Does anybody fancy having a go with me? We could probably find a modern 2-stroke engine to use...Then the question is, how much will the target market pay for the vehicle? If the figure is high enough then one could recreate the wonderful lightness of the original by building a composite monocoque - there are lots of flat panels in the structure of these cars, which would reproduce well in honeycomb-cored GFRP (or even carbon, if you wanted to spend a fortune). The compound curves of the main body panels add a great deal of stiffness and mean that they could be done in relatively thin GFRP. With a little localised steel reinforcement, I think one could come up with a very elegant and lightweight recreation.
So, back to the need for a donor
Departing rather from the original concept, if you could get the total weight down to 400kg you could slip it into the 'heavy quadricycle' legislative category which I imagine would reduce the development cost somewhat. The only problem is that you would then be limited to 20hp - for me that would be fine, something that light with a nice snickety gearbox and excellent handling would be an appealing drive. Others may scoff at it though. Having said that some people (many on the continent) pay surprising amounts of cash (circa £8000) for horrible Aixam etc. microcars. One which looked good and was sporting to drive might have real appeal.
The difficulty, of course, is getting hold of a 92 to act as a starting point
The Saab Museum might notice if theirs went missing for a few days...Maybe get a decent model of a 92 and run it though a 3d scanner? You could then get life-sized buck machined from a block of foam on a big mill (like some boatbuilders are using now for plugs). Looking at the 92, you could almost use vac forming! (if you then turned the 'skinned buck' over, the internal shape could be milled out and structural carbon laminated into it). You could probably then simplify the layout of the carbon and get a decent layer of foam between the skins for rigidity and sound insulation.
AnotherClarkey said:
Maybe get a decent model of a 92 and run it though a 3d scanner? You could then get life-sized buck machined from a block of foam on a big mill (like some boatbuilders are using now for plugs). Looking at the 92, you could almost use vac forming! (if you then turned the 'skinned buck' over, the internal shape could be milled out and structural carbon laminated into it). You could probably then simplify the layout of the carbon and get a decent layer of foam between the skins for rigidity and sound insulation.
Indeed. Getting the scanning right is a large part of the battle. Once the data is in the computer then one can start to get to work. 3D scanners aren't exactly plentiful, but they do exist in sensible numbers.I do rather like the idea of forming a one-piece body, but I suspect it wouldn't yield a particularly efficient body structure; those windscreen pillars, for instance, would end up having to be dramatically thickened using this approach. But it would certainly be a start!
On the topic of flat glass, I think that would only apply to an early 92 with the split front screen. Are split front screens still legal in the UK for any newly-constructed vehicle? I realise some kits use aero screens, but ISTR they are not classed as windscreens due to being low enough to see over.
Gassing Station | Saab | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff